User talk:Jza84

Archives

---

1. one
2. two
3. three
4. four
5. five
6. six
7. seven

I'm sorry to bother you again, but would you mind taking another quick look at the Didsbury article? I thought it was coming along really quite nicely, but another editor seems to be claiming on my talk page that you would disapprove of its current layout. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a quick look at the article. I didn't think that I was wrecking it, but I thought it best to ask for a second opinion. Thanks also for your kind comments. To be honest, I'm a little bit embarrassed at the unexpected words of support; I still feel very much like a newbie, learning new things every day, and I really haven't done that much compared with editors like yourself and so many others. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello James. I hope all is well with you. I've had to go through and revert edits to upwards of 27 articles just now - all of articles that are Warrington-related. The edits all seem to remove Cheshire-templates from the articles, along with removing references to Cheshire in the categories the articles have. Additionally, there are a swathe of edits on other articles that may need reverting, but I don't have the energy to do this right now. The user who has done this can be seen if you look at the obvious reversions in my contributions history just before I posted this message to you. Now, the edits seem to be reminiscent of a historic-counties activist, and I wondered if you had come across this user in the past doing similar things or pushing an historic counties line at all? If you have the time (and I accept that you may not), would it be possible to take a look and let me know? Best wishes, David.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, James. Thanks for the reply. He's re-imposed one change (anonymously, as can be discerned by looking at the editing histories of Culcheth and Glazebury and User talk:DShamen), and then posted a messge in which he accused some of us of being "rather touchy people". Well, it certainly seemed that a person of his editing experience ought to have realised that removing useful template information, in addition to his category work, was not a good idea on so many articles without any attempt at prior discussion given the number of them. So, I've given a slightly more robust response on his talk page. On other matters, I, too, have not been as active on here for a while - family issues (illness of my son, brother-in-law cancer scare, etc), and other matters have meant I haven't been able to devote as much time to editing things. I have, however, written some stuff on Hundreds of Cheshire and corrected the Cheshire entry on Historic Counties of England (though the map they use remains in error), and List of hundreds of England and Wales. This has meant I've had to correct things on History of Lancashire, and History of Cheshire, which I am slowly getherig info to expand. I'm about to edit Diocese of Chester to give a more accurate description of its history, and then plan to write Ancient Parishes of Cheshire. Once those are in place, I can devote much more time to expanding History of Cheshire to more than its current puny state. I did know about the Warrington records for family histories/genealogy purposes, as I intermittently try to find out more about my father's family histories (we have a rather locally-bound surname to north Cheshire, though I was born in Crewe). I've also been wondering what we may have to do if the proposed new unitary authorities get created (new templates, new articles, though stubs are already in place), and what to do with the old ones - in this last case, I think it would be an idea to link them together with an article or articles about past administrative structures within Cheshire, of which the hundreds are another component. In this respect, something like Administrative History of Cheshire might be a worthwhile article, as it would be one major article to link in with History of Cheshire and the other historical articles I've already mentioned. Anyway, those are my current thoughts. Glad to hear from you as well. I hope things are going well.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

No, youv'e not upset me at all - just a question. On the 2nd October I think you changed a reference on the "Kersal Moor" page from Site of Biological Importance to Site of Biological Interest. That's if I understand how to read the edits history properly - I'm still trying to get to grips with all this stuff. Anyway, as far as I can tell an SSSI is a statutory designation and SBI is non- statutory one. I'd used SBI in another article on "Prestwich" and decided to put up a page on "Site of Biological Importance" as an explanation. Once I'd done that I went to the Kersal Moor page, thought I must have mistyped it and changed it back. Then I realised it had been edited by someone else. Have I got it right about the two designations? You can check my sources on the Site of Biological Importance Page Richerman 23:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page, to avoid fragmenting the discussion. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome message, although currently working in the States, I hope I can use some of my 50+ years in the Manchester area to contribute. Take care Phil aka Geotek 16:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination to to delete both the band and the individual members was well founded, and I was pleased to see that it partially succeeded. Wikipedia is NOT a directory of anyone who has ever sung at a karaoke night at Wren's Nest. You know more about Wikipedia than I do, so maybe you can answer me this: You nominated Chloe Alper for deletion; her page is obviously self penned as ther is information in there that only she could know. Read it (I'm sure you have) and I hope you agree. My question is this: How can Chloe Alper claim any notability by reason of her association with the band 'Period Pains' when said band does not have an entry in Wikipedia. It is as if her entry was the entry for the band. She claims notability also by association with 'Pure Reason Revolution' but, granted, they have an entry in Wikipedia. To extend the reasoning, could I have an entry in Wikipedia because I once met somebody too insignificant to merit an entry on the grounds of notability? I think not. As I mentioneJustpassinby 23:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)d, I believe your arguments for deletion were well founded. I can and will address the objections raised to your proposals (unfortunately I ran out of time). If you wish to re-nominate for deletion then I will support your nomination[reply]

I do agree with that course of action. I have a problem with these entries (plus the one titled "The Dark Third" )which are not 'encyclopedic', but simply a 'promotional/Justpassinby 09:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)directory' entry. I don't know why they can't go into a more relevant Wiki[reply]

I got UK number plate codes to transcribe from this page British car number plates. Bobbacon 18:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jza84, I've not been around for a good while, I've been very busy over the last 6 months or so but I should now be able to start giving some time to Wiki. I'd be more than happy to rejoin the Gtr Manchester Project and hope to get started on the Wigan articles asap. Glad to see your still around !, hope to work with you in the future Man2 09:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking that maybe it would be great if you could maybe make a map with just the borough of Manchester on it? As the article is supposed to be about the borough I think it would be great if we had a map in the geography section with the city marked on it and the airport and all the other major towns in the borough. Also with the adjacent boroughs marked on it. I would try doing it myself but I have no idea where to start even though I have some software. Do you think you would be able to try and put something together sometime? I think it would be a great addition to the article. Thanks _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that map on Oldham is exactly the sort I was thinking of. Althought when it is shrunk down on the page it looks a little distorted, maybe that is because it is a jpeg? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 21:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for the map! I agree we will need to expand the geography section a bit and it shouldn't be too hard. We can add a bit about the history of the city boundries and information about the surrounding boroughs and how Manchester is seen as the regional centre for GMR, North West and even the North. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 21:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do live in Rochdale borough, not by choice. I don't know much about it in either history or geography terms, I know it is a bit of a dump though but that isn't very relevant. I guess I know a bit about the transport of Rochdale as I use it quite often to get out of here. I know they are supposed to be totally redeveloping the town centre soon but knowing Rochdale it is likely to take some time. I am willing to help with it though. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 13:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just thrown together a little bit of extra stuff onto the geography section. I know it is not very well worded yet but have a look here and tell me what is wrong/right with it, thanks! It is only a bit at the end of the geography section and hopefully there is more to come. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Great wording, it needs a bit more though still to make room for a borough map, any ideas? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 21:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do have illustrator and I have photoshop but I am not good with either! I just keep trying them out every now and again but have no real skills in using them to be honest! Sorry I couldn't help ya! I have no idea how they even made any of it! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 01:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pradraig has gotten me confused. He claimes the straw poll is invalid, yet argues it shouldn't be closed after 4-days. If he views the poll as invalid, why should he care when it closes? GoodDay 19:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, a compromise seems the only way. GoodDay 20:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something for you the status of flags in the UK:

• The Union Flags and flags of the United Kingdom

The English, Scottish and Welsh flags are recognised as National Flags by the British government, which some editors on WP claim isn't the case.--Padraig 15:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only way forward is that they accept that the Ulster Banner dosen't represent Northern Ireland today, and outside the contexts I put forward in the compromise solution its use breaches WP:V. They would be better off editing to improve Wikipedia then continue to edit war over this issue, I know I will be glad when this is put to rest.--Padraig 15:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the map image came about because when the Ulster Banner was removed from some templates, they argued that Northern Ireland couldn't left without a image when the England, Scotland and Wales entries had one, so someone added the map image to balance them out. When this is over I plan to remove the map images, as Flagcruft.--Padraig 16:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get a chance to have a look at the Lundy map? --MichaelMaggs 20:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good to me. Thanks very much. --MichaelMaggs 05:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jza84. Thanks for drawing my attention to the guidelines. What exactly are the changes you propose? Chrisieboy 22:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the kind words about my Sheffield map--yes, it was drawn in Adobe Illustrator. The railways are just paths with a 2 pt dashed stroke (2 pt dashes) and RGB of 63,63,63. I lightened the stroke colour to 102,102,102 to indicate tunnels (not really obvious at the size that it is rendered). —Jeremy (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I had seen this a little while back. I don't have, at the moment, the time I think the article needs so it's a little project on the backburner for now but thanks for the heads-up anyway. Regards, Severo^TC 11:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jza84, I've had a look at the guidelines and articles you mentioned and had a little think about the Blyth article's structure. I've come up with the following:

I'd very much prefer to leave Governance and demography as one section as the two subjects are combined within the text and they'd just end up as two very short sections anyway. I also think the Landmarks section should stay at the bottom as I feel it lacks the importance that similar sections in big-city articles might have. To be honest, although I don't feel as strongly about it, i'm not entirely enthusiastic about moving the Economy section as I feel that the subject is of particular importance to the town and the subject of regeneration follows on nicely from the rather gloomy end of the History section. Anyway, if you could let me know what you think, that would be great, cheers. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, forget all that—i've just seen your comments at the FAC page. I saw your message on my talk page but didn't think to check my watchlist before replying. I'll still see what I can do, though. Cheers. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen the new map, looks great! Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jza84. Just when we thought constituent countries was settled? GoodDay 23:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they've forgotten the name of the article, United Kingdom. Sure hope this isn't a continuation of 'British VS Irish'; anyways I'll keep my cool. GoodDay 23:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment, although I'm sure a lightbulb is destined any time soon... Rudget _{Contributions} 14:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jza84- my position is that editors should be allowed to show the image being discussed. No one has ever said that the flag is the official flag, and have pointed to sources such as Britannica and World Flags Database which state it is unofficial flag. Do you really think the position in List of British flags where the Union Flag is shown alongside a description of the Northern Ireland flag is appropiate?

I can't really see how to take the mediation forward given Padraig's refusal to compromise on any issue. Astrotrain 16:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add in a suggestion for List of British flags. I hope that by looking at specific articles, we can avoid this constant repetition over sources. Have a look at let me know what you think. Astrotrain 20:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation has hit the buffers again- Padraig is now deleting my suggestions. Any thoughts? [1]Astrotrain 21:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astrotrain Imade it very clear I was not going to discuss each article and template individually, you then added a new section to discuss an template before the previous discussion was agreed, so I removed it.--Padraig 21:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say thanks. --John Maynard Friedman 16:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean one for greeting new members and I have already seen the invitation message. A border around it would be great though! Also as you requested here is the assessment grid. It took a while to implement but after that the bot does all the work! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 14:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	8	10	10	19			47
FL		1	3	14			18
GA	6	14	29	41		1	91
B	16	34	56	106		4	216
C	24	47	149	365		52	637
Start		94	344	1,737		189	2,364
Stub		15	92	1,270		124	1,501
List	2	5	40	168		17	232
Category			1		1,210		1,211
Disambig			1		11		12
File					30		30
Portal	1				1		2
Project					5		5
Template				1	72		73
NA	1	1	6	26	67		101
Other					3		3
Assessed	58	221	731	3,747	1,399	387	6,543
Unassessed				2	1	83	86
Total	58	221	731	3,749	1,400	470	6,629
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 24,204			Ω = 4.98

Dearest Supporter,

Hi thanks for your welcome Logisticalwizard 11:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'll go more slowly. Thanks for alerting me Logisticalwizard 11:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is exactly the welcome message I wanted! I changed to colour scheme to red and yellow in line with the rest of the project, hope you don't mind! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 17:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's exactly the sort of thing, although I'd prefer a bit more text. Maybe I should work on a longer welcome message myself. If you're going to complain you have to be prepared to do the work to put things right. The logo's really good. I hope you've caught up on your sleep now. Just one other question - is there a way to search just the help pages? I don't find the help contents has very much in it. Richerman 14:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic map and brilliant writing! I just had to move it all straight to the Manchester article to let people see the great work. Thanks very much for being so prompt with the map, I know you have a lot of requests! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 03:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if you could give me an idea of how you create those excellent maps.I want to do the same. I'm in IT, and have used several GIS packages, but can't suss out how the maps are made. Can you give me an idea or direction? scope_creep 17:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me what the convention is for stating the distances to settlements? I put in the one from Kersal to Manchester measured from St. Anne's Church as it was always the distance used on milestones and old maps - and gave up on Salford as there is no real centre. I see you changed it to "the centre of" Manchester and added Salford - which I suspected was probably the right way to do it but didn't know where they were. Is the centre just a notional point you guess at from the map? Also what did you think of the text I proposed for the welcome template? It seem to have been met with a crashing silence so far, except from and-rew. Richerman 11:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes and no! The Genuki gazeteer sounds very useful but I'm still not sure where the centre of Manchester or Salford are. Is it Piccadilly for Manchester? and Salford doesn't seem to have one at all - where did you take them from - or did you just use genuki? And yes, please put the text on if you're happy with it. Richerman 11:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

I've uploaded an image at Wikicommons here, but there is one with an identical name on this English Wikipedia, here. I want to display the commons version, but the en.wikipedia seems to get priority, I and can't work out how to rename one or the other of these images to get around this. Can anybody help? -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the software doesn't have features to either include the Commons image or to rename an image. At present, the only thing you can do is to reupload the Commons image with a slightly different name (maybe mentioning on the image description page that it's a duplicate uploaded so that it would be includable from the English Wikipedia). Hope that helps! --ais523 11:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jza84, there's a request (again) to add on the British monarchs. Plus, the old argument of British monarchs beginning at 1603 instead of 1707 has begun (again). GoodDay 19:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bug you again Jza84, but I might be having trouble with Tharky. I'm not British, but I know (despite Tharky's Royal family source) that George I to Elizabeth II don't belong on the English list. Also, James I to William III are not British monarchs. GoodDay 00:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you're the only editor to this, and it's not used anywhere as of yet, you can simply place the ((db-g7}} on it, as G7 covers all namespaces. I've placed it there for you - hope you don't mind. SkierRMH 20:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I just nav'd over to your user page and saw that we're both of the same Clan Cameron! Aonaibh ri chéile SkierRMH 20:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At your request, I deleted it and put it 6 feet under. I also happen to be one of the main editors over at {{Infobox Settlement}}. I am available if you have any questions concerning the use of Infobox Settlement with English districts.—MJCdetroit 02:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, do you use MSN? If you do it would be great if I could add you as we do correspond quite often on here and I am sure it will be much quicker with IM! If you do have MSN please send me an email using [2] if not then no worries! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 01:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I don't make a habit of peer reviewing - I just take request, in this case from And-Rew. In any case, I'll take note of that standard. Cheers, — H₂O —  23:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the "talk" link in your sig goes to your userpage >_< — H₂O —  23:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue II - November 2007 Got any suggestions? - Add them here Member news The project now has 28 members! 7 new participants enrolled this week, they can be viewed here. There was also change to the welcoming messages this month, by Jza84, which reinvigorated the style in response to the change of colours on the main and affiliated pages. See the welcome templates, here. Finally, a barnstar has been created for the project! See the final design on this page, and so far it has been awarded to one lucky participants, WebHamster. Well done. Greater Manchester Article News Well has this month been a hub of activity, or what? (See:Original diff) The new assessment scale has been welcomed by many here at WPGM and as of 4th November, 81.37% of all 650 articles have been assessed with both importance and class. Two articles have been passed good article criteria since last delivery, they are: Didsbury & Dunham Massey. Well done to all involved. Current Debates There was a lengthy debate over a certain number of related articles in Manchester City Centre this week, (See:the thread involved). Aytoun Street, Barton Square, Brazenoose Sqaure, Dover Street, Manchester and Police Street were all flagged by Pit-yacker as being deserved of deletion per lacking notablilty. The process took 5 days at articles for deletion and the result was, delete. Other sections that readied editors into scrambling over themselves this month were: should Greater Manchester boroughs get their own infobox? Such as with London boroughs. The debate continutes. Monthly Challenges Same as last month, we've have to get Manchester upto Featured Article Standard. However, with Manchester now rated as A-Class (above GA and below FA) it may be easier than first thought. Try to fill all the current "to do" requirements. There has also been some talk of increased activity of bringing Greater Manchester to Good Article Standard. It would be ideal if all 650 articles were at least GA standard, but that will never happen in the next month. But please if you can, assess your ability to understand an article and if you're acquauinted with the task in hand and potentially long wait for a writing and for a review, go ahead! Be bold. Manchester Airport once again saw more vandal edits this month, and was protected for another consecutive month on 22nd October by Jmlk17. Some users have also realised the extreme coincidence in the first half of 65% of editing IPs, i.e. all begin with "79.72". Could it be the same editor? If you can keep visiting the page to revert vandalism in sight. The most freqeunt additions that are factually incorrect are the inclusions of: Chicago O'Hare and New York-JFK to Pakistan International Airlines (T2) and Newquay to Air Southwest (T3). MAN also has a peer review. Although you may not have noticed that this WikiProject has a associated portal. The page named, Portal:North West England, is updated frequently, but it would be nice to get more editors. It too has recently undergone a peer review, and some criteria has been added to get the page to featured portal status. You could signify your involvement by adding {{User Portal NWE}} to your userpage. Created by Rudget | Single-Page View

Hiya

Just to let you know that I have (I think) addressed all the points you raised at the Brownhills FAC, although I'm not 100% sure about the "built environment" stuff - I read the built environment article and, to be honest, I couldn't really follow it :-P ChrisTheDude 22:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I've added in a bit about the housing mix in the town (47% semis, apparently) and will see if I can find any further details worth adding in..... ChrisTheDude 09:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just wondering if you might have a chance to add your support to the Brownhills FAC soon....? Currently it's stalled a bit, with only one editor having expressed a firm support/oppose opinion...... ChrisTheDude 07:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support! ChrisTheDude 15:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know, I am working on the comment you made regarding the built environment, etc. of Blyth. Unfortunately, i'm going to be away next week, so i'll be unable to continue with it until I get back. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 11:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article has been promoted now. Thanks for your comments, I will try to get that last one sorted. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of another editor's question a few days back, I'd also like to know how you go about creating maps for English counties. To preemptively answer your first question, yes, I do have experience with vector-based graphics programs (mostly Inkscape, but I have used Illustrator in the past). – Swid ^{(talk · edits)} 03:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you intending to produce maps for English counties, or maps of other places in this style?.... It's quite a difficult process to explain - I'm not a proffessional cartographer, I just developed the style in frustration to lack of progress by other editors! You will need source material of the county you intend to make - Sometimes you're lucky to find stuff on Google, then official county/district/borough council material, or stuff from the Boundary Commission for England.

I'm not sure if there is a particular element that you're confused or interested about, so I'll give a breif description and you can then raise specifics, such as specific pantones etc..... The maps I make are simple in terms of construction; they use no special tricks or advanced editing. They are built in layers, ususally with the pencil tool. I create a layer for county boundaries (in pure black pencil - usually stroke 4 - 7), another for district boundaries, another for motorways (which are two identical layers upon each other - one in thick blue, the other in thin white), another for urban areas (which is any form of human structure). These are all "traced" from, and matched up to source material.

Once this is done, I usually finish them in Adobe Photoshop, so I use the eraser tool at 29% for all areas outside of the county, and using the free to use maps already on wikipedia, append a national map at the most appropriate corner of the image. That's a whirlwind explanation, does this help at all? -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd like to help out with creating maps for some of the remaining English counties. (I had been planning on making maps for municipalities here in Nebraska, but a bot beat me to that task a couple weeks ago.)

I was hoping there was a bit more automation to that process or a centralized source of the map data lying around somewhere, but I'm not surprised to see that it's largely a "brute force" task. That being said, I do have some follow-up questions:

• Is the base layer used for the counties simply an enlarged section of a UK outline map?
• Where do you manage to track down the data for urban areas? Do they have an explicit Census definition, or are they derived from topo maps or satellite imagery, or something else entirely?
• What are the Pantones used?

Thanks for your help thus far. – Swid ^{(talk · edits)} 18:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I can answer these (just about! - it's complicated!), but by base layer, do you mean the black line of the county boundary? I wasn't sure.

I have to be very careful about sharing tips on source material I'm afraid. On sources all I can say is that in the UK, official cartography is monopolised by the Ordnance Survey; in this capacity all of their material is copyright and exact copies are illegal. Examples of their excellent work however is normally found at www.statistics.gov.uk, (or try searching "County name" and "statistics", like "Cheshire statistics" at Google), should you be interested. Simillarly, GoogleMaps have excellent resources on what is an urban area and what isn't, but their work is also copyright. However, the urban areas from GoogleMaps and most other atlases are identical, and are escentially any kind of human settlement or development, and thus available from both topo and satellite material.

Matching everything up from multiple sources is the real trick with these. For example, you may have an excellent source for county boundaries, and another for urban areas, but there is no apparent way of easily matching the scale. I tend to work off coastlines and/or rivers and/or motorways however, sometimes from a third or fourth source where necessary.

On pantones, I'm not sure what format is best for you, but you may or may not be aware that they are selectable from the "eyedropper" tool if you open one of my existing maps in your image software?? I can provide them if you want though, I'm not being lazy! I understand it's hard to get instructions in this way, and thus I've no problem if you still have queries at this stage.... I do intend to aid in the completion of all county maps of England sometime soon though. Oh, and on another note, the county system to be used is that of the Ceremonial counties of England per convention. -- Jza84 · (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Arms-rochdale-mbc.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Arms-salford-city.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be able to get you into the room where these archives are stored, I'm only there at the generosity of a friend, so to take 'strangers' along with me would be really cheeky. However, I live near Urmston, so once I've found the volume you want meeting up somewhere should be fairly easy. I'm not after money for it, just a coffee would do nicely :) Please note they're too big for a scanner (I've added pics to my Flickr page), so you'd have to photograph them to upload any images to Wiki. Parrot of Doom 13:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the Salford article earlier today, and as it looked a bit unloved and forlorn I took pity on it. At least to the extent of doing enough to be able in good faith to take the cleanup tags off it anyway. But it's obviously miles behind the Manchester article. I was wondering though, is there any reason why it ought not to use the same settlement infobox as the Manchester article does? Currently it's using the UK place infobox, but that doesn't seem grand enough for a city. :)

I'm intending to see what I can do with at least some of those Salford articles, particularly the ones that mesh with my ongoing projects to get Trafford Park and Chat Moss up to GA.

BTW, your Oldham article is looking very good now. It'll soon surely be ready for GA/FA? I think in your place I'd go straight for an FA nomination with it. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never quite sure of the convention, but I've replied to your reply on my talk page. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 23:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see you've bitten the bullet and made the FA nomination, and I'll be doing all I can to help until it gets that star. Could I perhaps ask one small favour of you though? Instead of saying that "there is little to be gained" by a GA nomination could you perhaps make it clear that you're being specific to this Oldham article? "There's little to be gained in this case ...", for instance. There's lots to be gained in other cases. I've got quite a soft spot for the GA process, and I do think that it's useful. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar.— Rod ^talk 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done quite a bit of work on the Chat Moss article over the last few months, and I thought it might now be up to GA, so I nominated it yesterday. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to take a quick look at it and let me know what you think?

I'm optimistic that it will be our first GA for a landform in Greater Manchester, and perhaps even an FA in time. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for returning the copyediting favour, much appreciated. It's really hard to see the faults in my own "perfect" prose, much easier to see the faults in others. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some in-line citations to the tithe maps article. If you can, please take a look and let me know if more are needed. Rjm at sleepers 20:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole Inverness affair is really beyond ridiculous. I've recently been accused of holding some Scottish Wikipedians in contempt - is it really any wonder? --Breadandcheese 01:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help with the Redbridge, Hampshire (now back where it belongs!) article, much appreciated. Waggers 16:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note - I don't have time for a full response; just to say that I put this matter to WikiProject UK geography (see the discussion here. I don't agree with the conventions for reasons I'll explain nest week when I return from a short break. --Daemonic Kangaroo 16:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "skriking" certainly means "crying" locally. I have some memory of an article that refers to the local dialect containing Danish words, but I can't immediately locate it. I'll keep thinking. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! And, I'm pleased to say, quick to calibrate, too! Warofdreams talk 02:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I wasn't sure of putting it in some articles, but you've gone one further.

		The WikiProject Greater Manchester Award of Merit
		I, Rudget, award Jza84 the Greater Manchester Award of Merit for above board and oustanding contributions to Greater Manchester, and the greater area of the UK in general. Well done! Rudget.talk 13:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite alright. Rudget.talk 13:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on this! Regan123 (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very well done!! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 20:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well done. Backs up the awarding of barnstar! :) Rudget.talk 21:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on getting this article to FA status. Sorry I've not been my usual helpful self on this topic. Just a lot of things going on which I won't bore you with. Usually when I do get chance to play with Wikipedia I have nothing to contribute to local articles and end up getting on with something else. Sorry about that. Hope you're well, and well done again. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link and advice. User:Owain has made it his one-man mission to keep Wales in a pre-1974 limbo. For instance, when he adds a pre-74 county category he always gives it precedence over any current county category there already. Then he has gone to considerable lengths to create pre-74 administrative unit based categories for people, buildings and places, e.g. "People from Caernarfonshire" which includes 5th century saints and the rulers of medieval Gwynedd (anyone from that area born after 1974 is presumably to be ignored). He even went so far as to put the new Dwyfor-Meirionnydd constituency, formed a couple of years ago and yet to be contested, in "Category:Caernarfonshire" and "Category:Merionethshire"! Many other examples come to mind but I think that is sufficient for now. It's not that I'm madly in love with all of the new administrative units as such, but they exist and should therefore be used (historical context apart). One could add that even the pre-74 units were not static entities, as the label "historic" would seem to suggest. But I'm sure you're probably already aware of much of what I've said. If you have any suggestions or experience as to what can actually be done to limit his category editing, I'd be glad to hear from you. Thanks again / Diolch eto, Enaidmawr (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the additional and very detailed information which is much appreciated. Sorry to be so long in replying but i've been busy with one thing or another. One of the things I have being doing whilst here is going through our favourite user's "historic county" categories and amending a few things. After starting off rather timidly by simply putting "Category:Caernarfonshire" at the bottom of the pile on articles, I checked out the equivalent England and Scotland cats and found that hardly any contain towns and villages. Our friend has put several hundred Welsh towns and villages in the former county cats (usually taking precedence over modern units). What I wondered is, based on your experience with the English counties, should I remove? I become more and more annoyed by what I find of our User's edits as I do my rounds. Here's one example of removing an existing county and putting Cat:Caerns above the other cats for instance. Surely that is completely unacceptable behaviour. I'm sure it's not the only example as I keep finding articles which refer to village or lake X being "in North Wales" without any further localisation (very helpful that!). So, should I whittle away at the category contents so that only relevant articles such as defunct local admin units etc remain? And where do I stand should he retaliate, which is almost inevitable? Once again, I'd be glad to hear your advice. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I've just been going through User:Owain's Category:Montgomeryshire listings. Here are four examples of deleting Powys from the article and replacing it with either 'Montgomeryshire' or '(mid) Wales' and (adding Category:Montgomeryshire): 1., 2., 3., 4. This is so blatantly against naming policy - not to mention logic - that it beggars belief. I may have missed some others and I've not noted the 20 or so examples of him categorising small towns and villages as being in Montgomeryshire (with precedence over Powys, of course), now reverted. More later perhaps. I'm now keeping a log of this and similar instances. Cheers, Enaidmawr (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you, and why do you feel this page needs to be rewritten?

Actually, it was a problem with Paignton, the co-ordinates for which pointed to the sea. I've correct it. Nice work, again, don't wear yourself out!

In terms of requests, would it be possible to have a locator insert for the Edinburgh map, showing its location within Scotland or the UK? Also, for the Devon map, was Lundy just off the western edge, or might it squeeze on? Warofdreams talk 01:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the response. There is definitely an argument for the inset locator map for the Scottish council area maps showing Scotland rather than the UK, as those in the central belt are small and it will be difficult to see them on a UK map. What do you think?

The headline today: all three maps are now calibrated and have been implemented. England is now on the home straight; there is, however, a lot of Scotland to do, and as for Wales... Warofdreams talk 01:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, another one done. With only nine remaining, you could possibly finish England inside a fortnight! Warofdreams talk 01:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that's Wiltshire done, too. So far as I'm concerned, if you're planning on keeping anything like this rate up, the order doesn't really matter, so take your pick. I've got a plan for Stockton, but it would mean a major overhaul of the workings of the template, and I'll need to test it when I have a fair bit of time. By the way, thanks for fixing the West Sussex link. Warofdreams talk 03:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seven to fourteen days sounds great! I'm on holiday for two weeks from Saturday, but for the first week I will have some internet access and may be able to construct some more templates - so if it's closer to seven, I might be able to help - if it's longer, I'm afraid I'll have to wait until I get back. Warofdreams talk 03:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's Oxfordshire done. It's slow work, as I'm on a dial-up connection, and next week, I'll be abroad and unlikely to have any internet access. Warofdreams talk 00:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject Greater Manchester Award of Merit
		For virtually single-handedly getting Oldham to FA status.

Hi again; I've now joined WP:UKGEO. I had been meaning to for a few weeks, but never got round to it! I see we now have quite a few more UK place articles at Template:FA Featured Article status (including your Oldham nomination, I'm pleased to see!), so once I have finished the Peterborough spoken article I will try to narrate some more. Picking up on a point made by somebody at the Spoken Wikipedia talk page the other day, I wonder if it would be useful to have, on as many UK place articles as possible, a pronunciation link (using Template:Audio or similar syntax) demonstrating how the name is pronounced in British English? This would probably be most useful for our major cities and for places where the spelling is misleading, such as Happisburgh. It wouldn't take long to make, upload and link the sound files, and could prove to be a useful enhancement particularly for non-British users. I remember seeing several Dutch town and province articles with embedded pronunciation links (e.g. Overijssel), and thinking how useful this was. Let me know what you think.

Crawley, on which I was heavily involved in the recent rewrite, passed WP:GA a couple of months ago and has been stable since then. I have never submitted anything to peer review or Featured Article status before; in your view, on a quick look, does it seem ready for one of these? It would be great to see it as a Featured Article!

Cheers, Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a category on the Wikimedia Commons for "British English pronunciations", where sound clips of British-accented spoken words or short clips are stored (and then linked to their respective articles in Wikipedia, Wiktionary or wherever). Files have to be saved in the format (e.g.) En-uk-London.ogg, according to the naming convention shown here. In terms of embedding the audio in an article, neither the Wiki markup in the edit window nor the on-screen result look much different from "normal":

• Enschede or Eanske in the local dialect (Twents) is a municipality and a city...

• Enschede^ⓘ or Eanske in the local dialect (Twents) is a municipality and a city...

(I did it with Enschede because somebody has already uploaded and linked it :))

It all seems to work quite neatly and appears straightforward — I didn't know any of the above before today! Anyway, I need to create a Commons account first (which I have been meaning to do anyway); then I suppose it might be an idea to record a few test examples to see how it goes. If it seems to work, it may be an idea to put a note on the project home page about it — perhaps encouraging contributions (some of those Welsh names are quite difficult for a non-native speaker like me to attempt!), requests etc. Overall, although the ideal would be to have a full spoken version of each UK place article, having at least the name pronounced would be a good start. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the West Sussex map by the way! It's amazing how rural we really are. Anyway, I have made a start on the pronunciations as discussed above; please see this sandbox subpage on my userpage (disregard the misleading title and the bit about Avantix Mobile machines!). This is what London, Altrincham, Urmston, Hampshire and Somerset's first paragraphs would look like if they included the sound file. I'll put something on the WP:UKGEO page and/or talk page about the proposal; edit the relevant articles to include the sound clips; write a "how to..." for the project page, ideally to include an area where all clips can be listed by category (settlements, counties, rivers etc.); and then really get things underway by recording some more. Judging by the time taken to do everything necessary (recording, editing, uploading, adding to article text and copying to sandbox) for those five, this is a project on which real progress could be made in the short/medium-term. When each clip is only 1-2 seconds long, it wouldn't take long to get plenty produced. Anyway, enough gassing - have a look here and let me know. Hassocks5489 (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I've started a spoken version of Oldham today as well. Hassocks5489 (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info - the "discussion" I tried to generate elsewhere has rather ground to a halt. If I have a spare hour or two one day, and the inclination to take it up again, I may do, but it's not high on my list of priorities at the moment. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 21:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I have tinkered with the article as much as I think I can now and a test page is at User:Rjgibb/Sandbox. I read the suggested example articles and lifted a couple of tricks but was wary of putting too many tables and so forth in (e.g for population) where it would throw out the formatting alongside the extant images. Query also whether the smaller community sections look right and how best to get the Religion section to work with the images - both of which I think are needed. Any further suggestions appreciated. Cheers Dick G (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response on my Talk page. Thanks Dick G (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further resp on my Talk page. Thanks once again Dick G (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, appreciate you're on a break but if and when you log back in, please could you take a look at Wormshill (as rewritten) and consider taking it out of GA hold. Cheers Dick G (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping and welcome back. Yours in giddy anticipation, Dick G (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for completing the review, am quite chuffed! Am slightly disappointed that an editor thought fit to delete one of the images but I hope to be able to restore it as IMHO it falls within accepted fair use criteria. Thanks once again Dick G 21:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am registered and you can find me as LeeFallon. I'll try and send you a personal message, regards... Leefallon (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.22.208 (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is the right arena for a chat.

Thanks for your reply, and please do not feel that I find your comments in any way antagonistic. I, like you, understand the aims of the Wikipedia project - and also respect the formal guidelines of the site. I shall read the pages you have recommended with interest, and where possible modify my input accordingly. This entry is, of course, a work in progress and I intend to add much more in the future. I'm sure that as time allows it will be knocked into a recognisable Wikipedia shape. In the meantime please understand that this will be of great interest to anybody interested in Belthorn despite it's Wikipedia shortfalls. I've now offered up the basic framework for this entry, and intend to tweak it over the next couple of weeks.

Thanks for your interest and input.

Lee —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leefallon (talk • contribs) 00:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, let's be civil about this and argue it properly. I really hate animosity between editors: we're both trying to improve the article at the end of the day.

It is not right to say that the non-metropolitan county of Durham is a crop of the adminsitrative county no more as to say that the metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear is a crop of the adminsitrative counties of Durham and Northumberland. You can't give a history of the adminsitrative county (and before) and put it in the non-met Durham article and not the Tyne and Wear article as part of Tyne and Wear was part of the administrative county of Durham. This is denying Tyne and Wear its County Durham history: as if it was somehow "cut off" from "County Durham", which "lived on" in the non-metropolitan county of Durham. The non-metropolitan county does not have a monopoly over "County Durham".

I realise that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) states that counties are a continuation, and that you are only following guidelines. However, they are wrong. I will therefore challenge them there on the talk page. You can revert the edits that I made until it is resolved there if you wish.Logoistic (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your last comment on my talk page was out of order. You are not engaging with me at all. Logoistic (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed the issue here. I would appreciate it if you could engage with me and work together constructively. Logoistic (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello James, Thanks for the messages about the UK counties guidelines. I'll take a look. I've been away attending a series of funerals, and other family matters recently, and so have been preoccupied with other things. Now that I've come back, I've been trying to sort out some problems with Chester (but seem to have inflamed matters between myself and newish editor.) Oh well.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jza84, no problem - the userbox refers to an issue a while back when there was a real campaign (or at least the feeling that there was) to remove images of the Ulster Banner from Wikipedia with apparantly little consideration for context. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation to comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties. Apologies for the delay in replying, which has been due to a christening, a holiday and a funeral (in that order) coinciding with a change in broadband provider. The wrinkles in the last are not yet quite sorted but when I have the opportunity I will have a look and if I have anything to offer, I will do so.

Incidentally thanks for your involvement in the Chester article which has been a thorn in the flesh of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire. It would be good to get this article to an acceptable standard but so much to do....! Best wishes, Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's frustrating, but please try not to describe posts as trolling: it's not very helpful, even if it is trolling. --RFBailey (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to let you know when/if I decided to put myself forwards as an administrator.

Well, I accepted a nomination last night, although to be perfectly honest I'm rather beginning to regret it now. Anyway, if you'd like to make some comment my RfA is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Malleus_Fatuarum.

Great news about Manchester getting FA; the Belle Vue Zoo article is coming along nicely as well. It's really heartening to see so much activity in the project. You must feel very pleased with what you've achieved.

--Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of adding a wikibreak message to your userpage after you told me you wanted a break from Wikipedia via IM. I hope you don't feel offended, just wanted people to know you're not ignoring them. Hope you're back soon! _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 19:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear! I hope your hard drive can be recovered, it can often cost quite a bit. I hope you noticed Manchester has a lovely little star at the top now! Hope to see you on MSN or something soon and good luck getting all your data back. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 02:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you don't know how to, I can tell you how to "borrow" Photoshop CS3 and Illustrator CS3, just download MSN and come online. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 02:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can You please adopt me?

I've had a rough start to wikipedia, I just finished a block, but that was not because I was trying to be deliberately disruptive, but because i wanted to help and made a mistake

I am quite desperate,

Please adopt me

Thank-you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeseth1992 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about the end of your old computer. I don't know what's wrong with it, but I'd have thought that you're likely to be able to get at least some of your data off the hard drive - although it may take time and/or cash, if it means you don't have to spend hours finding material again, it might be worth it. I've not used GIMPshop, but Inkscape seemed pretty user-friendly and flexible to me. I'm off on a proper holiday on Saturday, so I'll look forward to calibrating some more maps following my return! Warofdreams talk 02:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, and I hope you've had some success at recovering data, as Warofdreams says. My hard drive on my (now ex-)PC went a few months ago — luckily I had some warning, in the form of weird behaviour and mysterious random crashes. It doesn't seem like you were so lucky. I finally ditched that PC — a hand-built veteran dating back to 2000 — about 3 months ago after the registry corrupted: I couldn't be bothered sorting it out, and just started again with a new PC and Windows Vista. Good job you told me about Greenacres in Oldham — I had pronounced it in the intuitive, wrong way! Will correct that before uploading, which should be some time in the next week. The Embedded Audio Pronunciations are progressing well; I recorded all the London Boroughs and counties this weekend, and am in the middle of editing them. Next up: some of the entries on this fascinating list. I'll do spoken versions of Manchester and Brownhills soon, now that they have reached Featured Article status. Bye for now, Hassocks5489 23:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You kindly offered to adopt Joeseth1992. I don't know if you noticed, but he had just been released from a 3 day block for vandalism when he began to do it again. He now has a week block. I don't think he really wants to learn how to be a good editor, as a quick check of his contributions will bear out. Cheers, Jeffpw 15:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little background, though it is rather dull: My adoptee contacted him right after ebing adopted, and suggested he contact me and offer to adopt me. He did so, to be silly. When I told him to knock it off, he left me a vandal warning, then did the same to 6 people, including (by an unlucky coincidence) 2 admins. hence the first block. After being unblocked, he asked about 8 people to adopt him, then added a vaguely obscene limerick to another user's page.

My adoptee right now was also blocked in the beginning, and is now making great progress, so if this guy can be rehabilitated, fantastic. Miracles happen. Just wanted to fill you in. Happy editing! Jeffpw 15:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no no thats not what i meant when i spoke to him! i meant for him to ask you (User:Jeffpw), if you would adopt him... why would i say it the other way round? hes like completely new! O_o Iamandrewrice 16:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, and yes a break has been good. Let's see what we can do with County Durham. Have a look, do you feel anything else needs either a copyedit or citations? MRSC • Talk 21:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on that. Also, I'm gkad you sorted out your computer problems. On the Chester article edits, I see you've removed the entry for the Chester Wiki. This was put in on a once-only basis a good while back after a lot of artument and complaints from aggrieved Chester Wiki users who seemed to think wikipedia's rules should nlot apply to them. The discussions, now archived somewhere in WP:EL concluded that no real harm would be done by including a one-time only link in the article, and that, together with an apology (used since against me) seemed to calm them down for a while. We still see them appear every now and then, make complaints, but contribute little of any value, and then disappear again. The latests new editor on Chester (messages on the talk page and edit histories can tell more) may well be a user of it. He seems to be very jumpy, and your edits may well cause some kind of backlash: it was my attempts to sort out editing messes by him that made him launch a mini-campaign against me, which I hope is now over. Personally, I think it is better that the Chester wiki is gone, but this message is just to warn you that there may be some complaints about its removal and other edits you have made. A basic confusion between Chester and Chester (district) still exists in this new user's mind, I suspect. But at least he isn't one of the editors who treats the articles solely as a means of providing local election results and history (we have some of them too.)  DDStretch  (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue III - December 2007 Got any suggestions? - Add them here Member news The project now has 31 members. 3 new participants enrolled last month, they can be viewed here. Andrew has also created another template for your talk page (even though this links to your userpage) which displays for all to see that you are a member of the project. You can add it to your page by including {{WPGM Talk}} to the page. It may be difficult to see the true effects of these welcoming messages, but I'm estimating that since the introduction of these that 12 new users have joined, all 100% have accepted their invitations, and therefore they are 100% successful in their aim. Greater Manchester Article News Once again, the project has been subject to much praise from three newly promoted featured articles, and one more good article. Oldham (nom), Manchester (nom), M62 motorway (nom) and Chat Moss (review) have all passed with flying colours. Featured articles now make up 0.03% more of the overall articles that there are relating to the project, than last month. Of all 791 pages which are tagged with this template, 100% have been assessed with the new scale which was introduced last month. It may also be worth noting two others pages that are undergoing transformations are: List of companies based in Greater Manchester and Belle Vue Zoo. Current Debates There was a lengthy debate over Manchester Airport this month, which lead to three article for deletions, second nominations viewable here and deletion review viewable here. Basically, what happened was there was quite a great misunderstanding of what the purpose of the lists actually were. They were to compile a list of the destinations served by each terminal and linked along into a sub-page, where it would seem the overview page (i.e. Manchester Airport) would look less cluttered, as was the suggestion at the peer review. Some participants at the first AFD, stated that reviews shouldn't be carried out upon unless there is consensus, and as they are not authorative should only be used as a guide. It was soon sorted though and all three daughter-lists were deleted. There has also been a change to the projects aims, which took a dramatic overhaul this week following the FA pass of Manchester. The change was performed by Jza84. It is now recognised that we should bring not only top importance articles to FA standard but also ones that have been long-since reviewed, like Altrincham and Stretford. And if you're wondering why Salford is there it's due to the fact that there is a consensus among the project members that as Salford is in such close vicinity to the City of Manchester, that it's our "duty" to help promote it. The change came about about after this discussion. Monthly Challenges New this month, we have to get Greater Manchester upto Featured Article Standard. However, with Manchester now rated as FA-Class and the proposed "skipping" of the GA process, it may not be too long before we see this under the success section on the project mainpage. It would be ideal if all 791 articles were at least GA standard, but that will never happen in the next month! But please if you can, assess your ability to understand an article and if you're acquauinted with the task in hand and potentially long wait for a writing and for a review, go ahead! Be bold. The progress monitor can be seen here. Once again, Portal:North West England has been subject to much exposure on behalf of it's editors. The current status of the portal is looking good and it has so far gained unanimous support at it's FPOC. Hopefully, it'll be promoted and we'll have yet another success on our hands. Also, most major articles that are relevant have been tagged with a shortcut to the Portal mainpage, by Jza. And finally, have a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Created by Rudget | Single-Page View

Don't be so rude! At the very least you should ask for verification BEFORE undoing an edit. Just so you don't feel justified in getting on your high horse again when I re-edit, my sources are as follows: (1) An intimate acquaintance with the history (and derivation of place names) of Todmorden having spent the first 28 years of my life there. (2) It is common knowledge that Todmorden was on the western fringe of the area (the eastern part of which was known as Elmet) that remained Celtic for over two hundred years after the departure of the Roman legions until King Edwin of Northumbria invaded in the 7th century. (3) The reinterpretation of the so-called Anglo-Saxon invasion as one more of cultural realignment following some immigration rather than outright invasion and displacement has been addressed in the publications of Francis Pryor, President of the Council of British Archaeology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stansfieldman (talk • contribs) 03:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So in other words your work is original research. This is a no-no as you'll see if you read the link. Your personal knowledge of the area is immaterial if you can't back it up with references. I'd suggest you spend some time learning the basics of Wikipedia before you set in on an established and highly thought of editor like Jza84. And just in case you need it repeating. The onus of verifiability is on the editor who places text in an article, not the editor who removes it for lack of verifiability. Now I also suggest that the next time you fill in text in a WP edit box I suggest you read the "Please note:" section below before clicking on the "save page" button. PS. signing your comments is also a good idea too. --WebHamster 11:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was being polite, very polite in the circumstances. Before you lecture me on Wikipedia’s fundamental policies, here are a few quotations from its policies: “Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.” “Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary.” [Please take good note of that one.] “If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.” “When a revert is necessary, it is very important to let people know why you reverted.” What you did was inappropriate, very rude and against Wikipedia’s policies. You do not revert a person’s contribution because you think the language a “little flowery”. Nor do you revert a contribution because you are simply ignorant of the facts as evidenced by your statement “I'm fairly local, but have never heard this.” And who is this “we” in “we do not allow…”? The action was yours alone. In this discussion you have not provided any firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary of my contribution, and it would be a sad day when Wikipedia becomes the beat of style police. Wikipedia should be a joy to read, not an arid academic text. I don't write my research publications in the dry style used by far too many of my academic colleagues and I won't write that way in Wikipedia just to satisfy someone else's sensibilities. Please observe the Wikipedia policies on reverting and let others with more knowledge than you provide contributions in their own way without such hindrance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stansfieldman (talk • contribs) 06:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would be so kind as to provide references to any of your research publications then we could each make our own mind up about how arid the writing was, without having to rely on your opinion alone. You might also like to consult with the policies and guidelines of the publication that you're contributing to here, in particular WP:AGF --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try and get it to FA. I've contacted Malleus and got a peer review, but was interested to see if you had any other opinions. Best, — Rudget _speak.work 21:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of answering your questions. Instead, I’ll remind you again of the Wikipedia policy about reverting someone’s contribution: “If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary”. You have not shown you possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. You have only asked a series of questions that show you acted without adequate knowledge of the subject. You reverted my contribution inappropriately and without adequate explanation. A ‘citation needed’ tag was the most that could be warranted in the circumstances. Furthermore, nothing in Wikipedia’s policies or guidelines justifies your criticism of my writing style. And if I want to introduce the early history of Todmorden in a wider context I will. What you did was an act of vandalism and against Wikipedia’s policies. Invoking some fictitious collective (as in “does not meet OUR reliable source guideline” and “WE need to see” [my emphasis]) as backing for your action does not disguise the fact that you acted alone and misinterpreted Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. I advise you to reconsider the level of zeal you are applying to editing other people's work, and remember the “do unto others as you would be done by” principle. From now on, please restrain your urges to interfere so destructively with contributions that have been made by others in good faith.Stansfieldman (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the Todmorden article I still have to admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. I just want to say that editing other's work is one of the hallmarks of wikipedia, and why it works, as is the sometimes hopeless requirement to assume good faith. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it." Jza84's "level of zeal" makes him the valuable and valued contributor that he is. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Someone with your experience should be more nurturing of those you believe to be inexperienced. Your special standing in the community only makes it less excusable that you revert as a first rather than a last resort. That is why I have been so annoyed at your behaviour – if this is your usual m.o. then you will damage the Wikipedia community by intimidating and driving away newcomers. This really isn't about the article, it's about whether as a community we should ever want the editing to be merciless (barring obvious vandalism). Which brings me to another point. Since you have raised my experience in the community as an issue I’ll let you know that I only recently set up Stansfieldman while I’m working and lecturing in Australia. My intention being that it would make it easier for me to keep track of the contributions I make while here; then I could tweak them and fill citation gaps when I return to the UK. I did not include citations in the Todmorden snippet because I do not have access to all my reference material over here and, as you say, it was such a petty entry I did not think it mattered – until you upped the ante. I’m not as inexperienced as you think. Besides previous involvement with Wikipedia, I’m also an author, have many publications in international peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings, and have been an editor for an international journal. (That’s where the “flowery” language comes from – I know what works well.) While I wanted to express my displeasure at your behaviour, I did not want to appear to patronise you by mentioning my experience. So it’s ironic that you feel the need list your achievements as vindication. As things stand, I think I’ll put Stansfieldman to sleep now that you’ve taken an interest in the contributions, and I’ll revert to my old Wiki-persona. Goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stansfieldman (talk • contribs) 03:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, I know multiple accounts are frowned upon, but it was convenient. My anger is burning out now, and on reflection I realise I've been over the top in how I've presented my point of view. Consequently, I apologise for any offence I've caused. As for signing off - I'm so used to the email system doing it automatically I keep forgetting - but not this time:Stansfieldman (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jemmy H is back on the Wigan pages. I thought you banned this guy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.187.124 (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what to say about his notability or whether the article could be seen as an advertisement or catalogue. For one thing, Capuchin Friars don't tend to have advertisements! I should have said his notability was quite genuine. Over the course of the past thirty years he has had thirteen books published, recently by the prestigious religious publishers Gracewing. He has also written numerous articles that are available online or in specialist journals. He is now acting head of an Oxford hall and will be the last head of that hall, which is due to close this academic year, which in itself makes him quite an historic figure. Obviously outside the Catholic Church and Oxford University and the other universities in which he has worked over the years he is not going to be very well known, but this applies to most people who are specialists in any particular field. Take Ryan Ashford for example. He is 26 years old and plays for a football team in the Wessex League Premier Division. To me, that sounds like somebody of little notability, but I shan't try to get his article deleted because I simply don't know enough about football. He sounds pretty minor to me, but I don't know, maybe in the football world he's big (though he doesn't sound it). One other thing about Mark Elvins is that The Heraldry Society has a lecture named after him. The only other people who have a Heraldry Society lecture named in their honour are the founder of the Society and the founder's mother - both of whom are dead. To have a lecture named in your honour while you're still alive is therefore quite unusual and suggests that he is held in considerable esteem within that small world.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jza, since my proposal I accepted the consesnsus that there should not be seperate articles, but the point about seeing the 1974 changes as a "reconsitution" was an interpretation not actually supported by the LGA 1972 was fair, and you agreed that my wording in the article was fair. Do you still support this wording, and if not, why? Logoistic (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your agreement was to this edit made at 16:55, 30 November 2007. Your agreement (about an hour later) was to this one, which stated that the two views: that whilst it is seen as a "change" or "reconstitution" by some (with sources), the orignal source document simply redsitributed the admin county area among three new entities. Either you accepted this for its own merits (and therefore still do so now), or simply said it to keep the peace. We have to adress it on its own merits though. Logoistic (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, ok, you claim you never actually saw it. Ultimately, the sources you have are secondary. The primary source does not say anything about reconsitution. It's not on to present secondary source interpretations as fact. And remember, its not the contributor that matters, but the content. Just because somebody has an academic qualification in local government studies or a Wikipedia guideline says something does not mean that my argument can be ignored. Logoistic (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good faith in the last message - I really do appreciate it. The issue is not splitting articles up: I have accepted that splitting articles is a no-go (although I don't agree). What I want is recognition that the 1974 changes were entities being abolished and distributed among newly created entities (as per the LGA 1972), and that it is only an interpretation that the non-met county of Durham is the reconstituted form of the administrative county of Durham. But anyway, I've asked for comment. Sorry if I seem to batter on, but I just can't rest when I think something isn't right! Take it easy. Logoistic (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]